Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-90 MBT and Variants

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Austin on Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:06 pm

    T-90AM

    http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/d-90do10.jpg

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Austin on Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:08 am

    T-90AM New Pictures

    http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/62/79/d-90do10.jpg

    some info on Armata and T-90

    http://vpk.name/news/56616_rossiiskaya_armiya_k_2020_godu_vzglyad_optimista.html

    Will be purchased and equipment for ground forces. Thus, according to the director of the Federal Service Rosoboronzakaz Sergey Maev, 2020 Russian fleet of armored forces will consist of half-T-90 tanks from the tanks and half the new sample. At the same official let slip about the combat characteristics of new cars. The new tank will get a higher fire power, more powerful ammunition and shooting range. Work is underway to build missiles with a range of 7 km. (Now the Russian Army is a tank missiles with a range of 5 km). . Manageability tank will be increased by the use of various automatic control systems. Average speed of vehicles on rough terrain should reach 50-60 km / h, against the current of 30-50 km / h. In addition, one of the main requirements for the tank crew will be the ability to conduct combat operations within 24 hours without leaving the car.


    T-90 justifiably criticized, but this machine is well suited to be the "workhorse" and can remain in service for many years. This tank is capable of withstanding an explosion 30 kiloton nuclear bomb at a distance of 700 meters and can travel underwater. But its main advantages - it's maintainability, simplicity, possibility of use in harsh climatic conditions and, of course, low price (about $ 1.8 million for export versions).
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:06 am

    Interesting in the new photo that they have an ERA array protecting the side of the turret of the tank.
    In the past they have tended to focus on armour in the frontal arcs and protecting the sides by shaping to make them difficult to hit from the front.

    I would suspect that in addition to ERA blocks they might have thickened the armour on the turret sides to further increase protection.

    It sounds like they are going to a hi lo configuration of tanks again with the hi Armata and low T-90, though I would think that they would need large orders of T-90s to make the T-90AM version cheap.

    I rather suspect they might try to introduce a T-90 "family" of vehicles first, perhaps with test units using T-90 based vehicles like the T-90AM, the BTRT, and T-90 based MSTA 152mm tube artillery and T-90 based air defence vehicles etc.

    Would be useful to test as many things at once so there is little point till about 2012 when the communications and command and control systems are ready, but production of the actual vehicles could start as soon as next year to ensure numbers.

    Remember right now the majority of the tank park is T-72s, and they have by my estimates less than 1,000 T-90s so if they want a balanced force of Armatas and T-90s then they are almost going to have to make as many T-90s as Armatas.

    Will be interesting concentrating all you tanks and tank based vehicles into Heavy Brigades.
    Of course the fire power of the BMP-3 means in terms of firepower their medium and light brigades would not be lacking even without a vehicle with a 125mm gun. (ie BMP-3M for medium and BTR-90M equivelent based on the Kangaroo for the medium and light brigade).
    Of course they will likely have Sprut type vehicles as an option too.

    The comment about Armata having a more powerful armament is interesting... will it be a new weapon setup with perhaps a 30mm cannon and updated 125mm gun of higher pressure with even longer rod penetrators?

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Austin on Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:28 am

    Garry something more interesting on T-90M from Gur Khan blog

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/08/blog-post_3131.html
    avatar
    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 706
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:14 pm


    Garry:
    The Nakhidka IR and radar protection screen reduces radar signature by a factor of 6 and IR signature by a significant amount as well.
    Its purpose is to make the tank invisible at extended ranges so while the T-90s thermal sight will allow the T-90 commander to clearly see an Abrams at ranges in excess of 7km, the Abrams commander will have a much greater problem of seeing the T-90 due to the IR screening.

    Similar systems are available on the free market (like the Swedish Barracuda) and are in use on several AFVs.

    Such a system is not incremental to an AFV. They can be integrated into every AFV out there so it is not a specific performance advantage of a single AFV but an option for everyone.

    Such gadgets are only interesting for performance comparisons when they are only available for a specific vehicle or if the design features of a vehicle hinder an implemention.
    avatar
    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 706
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:29 pm


    That is the most complete line of inf. across T-90

    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-294.html
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:42 am

    Similar systems are available on the free market (like the Swedish Barracuda) and are in use on several AFVs.

    Such a system is not incremental to an AFV. They can be integrated into every AFV out there so it is not a specific performance advantage of a single AFV but an option for everyone.

    That is true, but from what I have read the Russian upgraded tanks are going to be fitted with everything that works including ARENA etc so there is a high chance they will be fitted with Nakidka as well.

    US tanks on the other hand are not assured of getting such things applied to them any time soon because most of their potential enemies don't have thermal sights anyway.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:10 pm

    ahmedfire wrote:
    Garry:
    The Nakhidka IR and radar protection screen reduces radar signature by a factor of 6 and IR signature by a significant amount as well.
    Its purpose is to make the tank invisible at extended ranges so while the T-90s thermal sight will allow the T-90 commander to clearly see an Abrams at ranges in excess of 7km, the Abrams commander will have a much greater problem of seeing the T-90 due to the IR screening.

    Similar systems are available on the free market (like the Swedish Barracuda) and are in use on several AFVs.

    Such a system is not incremental to an AFV. They can be integrated into every AFV out there so it is not a specific performance advantage of a single AFV but an option for everyone.

    Such gadgets are only interesting for performance comparisons when they are only available for a specific vehicle or if the design features of a vehicle hinder an implemention.


    That is true only in a very partial way. Let put the facts straight
    1) The corrispective of Nakidka (also if in reality talk of a real corrispective would be technically incorrect)is SAAB MCS - Mobile Camouflage System - ; this product at contrary of,at example,ULCAS - Ultra Lightweight Camouflage Screen - from the same company (a corrispective of the Russian Volchitsa-KR camonet) is not a single polymer layer with multispectral capabilities but offer different layers customizable by the operators for a particular purpose

    From the site of its producer SAAB :"Saab Barracuda’s Mobile Camouflage System (MCS) is intended primarily for protection of vehicles while moving and during combat. The Mobile Camouflage System is a flexible solution that can be applied in a number of configurations using different types of materials."
    and "The Mobile Camouflage System (MCS) provides protection to vehicles while moving and during combat. Available in a range of different versions, the system is composed by a combination of camouflage materials with signature adaptation properties such as visual and near-infrared protection, thermal protection and radar protection."

    SAAB MCS has of course also its advantages in respect to Nakidka ,at example, it is significantly more light ,it is cheaper, adaptable at the shape of the intended vehicle and mantain the typical blending surface of common camo-net ,adaptable to different environments, but it is a product in a completely different category in respect to Nakidka , the level of complexity of which render the product of NII Stali a true unique product, with no real equivalent at today woldwide (we must in fact remember that NII Stali has proudly publicized the outstanding capabilities offered by the export version of Nakidka , sure that no other producer at world could have claimed for a contemporary system ,parameter-vs-parameter, equal or better figures ...and that revealed itself true up to today ,SAAB included....)

    That is a video of the same NII Stali explaining the characteristics of the material composing Nakidka and its operational impact
    Note : Is not the radar signature of the protected vehicle, but the radar tracking range at being reduced to 1/6 .


    www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYpwPx--exs

    avatar
    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 706
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  ahmedfire on Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:59 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Similar systems are available on the free market (like the Swedish Barracuda) and are in use on several AFVs.

    Such a system is not incremental to an AFV. They can be integrated into every AFV out there so it is not a specific performance advantage of a single AFV but an option for everyone.

    That is true, but from what I have read the Russian upgraded tanks are going to be fitted with everything that works including ARENA etc so there is a high chance they will be fitted with Nakidka as well.

    US tanks on the other hand are not assured of getting such things applied to them any time soon because most of their potential enemies don't have thermal sights anyway.

    n the big picture the US is overhelmingly in front of everybodythat else that reducing the IR/radar signature of individual tanks is not going to change much.
    Especially their highly networked force structure is impressive. A modern US heavy division tied into their force structure is really impressive when it comes to punch, agility, reconaissance and responsiveness. So the individual system has less impact on the capability of such a heavy division than with a force which can hardly employ combined arms tactics let alone the sort of networked sea/air/land-battle the US can (I am not referring to Russia here!).

    And the Barracuda may very well suffer a little bit from NIH-syndrome.


    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:17 pm

    Especially their highly networked force structure is impressive. A modern US heavy division tied into their force structure is really impressive when it comes to punch, agility, reconaissance and responsiveness. So the individual system has less impact on the capability of such a heavy division than with a force which can hardly employ combined arms tactics let alone the sort of networked sea/air/land-battle the US can

    Excuse me for say that, but i absolutely don't agree on this position, not in its premises neither in its main inferences.
    If you have read Net Working Warfare by David S. Alberts, Frederick P.Stain and John J. Garstka ,or other publiation ,in particular on the sensor network in tracking and surveillance operations, you will realize that obviously net working warfare, like any concept in this world, don't contain only positive trends and potentials, but also evident lackings leading to points of breacking of its same constituent structure.

    One of those weak points is just related to surveillance and tracking sensor network, the information's chain linked to it and the strategic and the tactical actions triggered ,at an unified level, by that same data flow; one of the most fearful point of breacking in NWW is just that any system technically capable to neutralize or interfere with the main elements in tracking sensor network, cause effectively the whole net worked structure to act as a potent catalyst of completely wronged proactive or reactive actions.
    This potentially destructive sequence’s cascade in the force command structure is ,obviously ,enormously exacerbated in conflicts against enemies which have invested in systems enjoying "metric" or, for better say, extensive advantages (engagement envelop of missile, the off-road speed of an IFV, the time of reaction or number of target engageable in a time unit by a particular SAM, etc..etc...) offering hardware linear advantages not easily reducible .

    To clarify even more what now expressed i will do some examples : Image an offensive/defensive operation where E-8 Joint STARS or an E-3 AWACS was scanning a particular sector ,now in a group of trees of this sector a Penela-1/2 ,under a Volchitsa-KR ,go active. The surveillance assets scan the sector providing the overall position of various enemy assets (a mobile command center, an advancing mechanized regiment, a pair of SAM launchers , sevral MRLS etc...),with the only particular that those informations has been selectively corrupted and twisted by the Pelena-1/2.
    From this moment those wronged information begin to spread at enormous speed in the whole force structure quickly triggering an horrible ,almost instantaneous ,chain of wronged decisions and net worked reaction, the system, in brief, begin to act against itself !
    Naturally an enemy enjoying hardware parametrical advantages against the correspondent systems of its enemy, can transform a similar situation from serious to deadly; an air attack against the MLRS artillery pieces tracked in a position ,and in reality at 50-60 km of distance, could cause the whole air group committed at the task to be washed-out by the SAM elements not tracked or tracked in completely different positions, the allied ground forces contestually retreated to prevent that them was engaged and destroyed by the enemy superior (both in range and fire power) MLRS ,could open a deadly corridor for the enemy ground divisions to exploit etc..etc... the possibilities are infinite.
    In brief any enemy asset capable to act even only slightly and slowly in the mechanisms of the surveillance and tracking sensor network is very likely to produce exponentially greater and quicker negative effects in the whole chained structure of a networked force.

    ahmedfire you can, at this point, easily realize how a system as Nakidka, at the exact contrary of what you had asserted, represent an example of those a crucial assets capable to produce disproportionate effect just against an enemy which have heavily pointed on situational awareness superiority and information data sharing/management superiority, (important also for compensate several metrical deficiencies ,on a one vs one basis , of its offensive/defensive systems against the corresponding of its main competitor).

    A regiment of Iskander-M equipped with Nakidka not detected by a RQ-4 Global Hawk at useful range would lure the US command to order the quick coordinate transference to a “safe” airfield of bombers, fighter, AWACS ,EW aircraft and other assets for a planned air attack, obtaining instead ,as disastrous outcome, that in few minutes you would have that airfield literally reduced to a sprawl of smoking craters; with losses simply incalculable for your side and lacking any systems with the same kinematical qualities of that employed by your opponent you wouldn’t have any chance to respond.
    A division of T-90 followed by a mechanized infantry with BMP-3M or “Smerch” MLRS equipped with Nakidka could effectively use the opponent’s dependency on shared tracking data and quick decision and reaction chain as a powerful weapon against them effectively engaging enemy forces perfectly coordinated for displace themselves, manoeuvre and concentring assets as the area was free of enemy presence; of course,the Nakidka-equipped elements could in this way also exploit at maximum the enormous difference in engagement envelop and fire power enjoyed over the enemy equivalent assets ,with fatal consequences for the opposing forces….. the examples possible are almost infinites.
    When you think at a particular type of warfare concept ,you must image what would be the countermeasures adopted by high end enemies not immensely inferior ones, moreover while you cannot teach to your missile to go farther , to your aircraft to have a greater autonomy, to your air defence to engage more target contemporaneously etc…etc…the military forces of an advanced nation can, with very little modifications to operational process ,force structure or employment of the introduction of purposely designed system greatly influence the delicate system’s architecture at the basis of a force constructed around a Network Centric structure


    avatar
    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 706
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  ahmedfire on Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:24 am

    I never said that the trend for more network based command structures doesn't has it's drawbacks. The ability of guys thousands of km away to micromanage individual firefights is just one of them...

    The increasing vulnerability against electronic warfare is one of them but it is also hardly new and the cold war has seen extensive preparations on both sides to disrupt and trick enemy electronic signals and emissions of all kinds.

    But rattling down a number of possible scenarios how a highly networked high tech force may get it's head banged because of some innovative tactics and technologies doesn't alter the fact that modern forces gain alot by using all kinds of battlefield management systems and command and control networks in a flexible force structure. That Russia is trying to achieve this too with the introduction of new systems and force structures should show you alot.

    Sure a war against a well trained and equipped foe may very well lead to some ugly surprises but this is war. Just because not everything may work as planned doesn't mean new technologies, tactics and force structures are not worth using them. And it's not as if well planned maskirovkas or tricky tactics didn't lure enemies into killzones before. This is not new.

    Now back to Nakidka. I wouldn't believe too much in sales brochures from any company and country. Barracuda is reducing the signature of an AFV. How effective it really is is difficult to say as this is totally dependent on the environment and the stuff used to locate it. A 1st generation TI in a steaming jungle will be much more affected by it than a modern TI somewhere in Norway. Because of this i would be carefull about statements like reducing the radar signature by six times.

    Fact is that Barracuda is available and in use with several AFVs. Nakidka may very well work a bit better but it will not be a fundamental advantage as it's basic features are not unique. Making a warwinning capability out of it reminds me too much of the hype around tube launched ATGMs

    "A regiment of Iskander-M equipped with Nakidka not detected by a RQ-4 Global Hawk at useful range would lure the US command to order the quick coordinate transference to a “safe” airfield of bombers, fighter, AWACS ,EW aircraft and other assets for a planned air attack"

    Why?
    What's compelling the US-forces to do so?
    Like in chess, you can't assume that the enemy voluntarely will move in a manner suitable for you plan, you'll have to force him; to "dictate" him to move in a manner suitable for your plan. You have to "dictate the war to your enemy". If you don't do that, the enemy will dictate the war to you.

    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:19 am

    n the big picture the US is overhelmingly in front of everybodythat else that reducing the IR/radar signature of individual tanks is not going to change much.

    Based on what?

    Which enemy has the US fought in the last 60 years that would make any superiority in IR/Radar signature reduction technology worth while?

    Did the VC have helicopters that can detect armour using MMW radar?

    Does Al Quada use thermal imaging sights to find US vehicles?

    Are Taleban IEDs radar directed?

    Even if the Abrams was completely radar invisible it would be to zero advantage to the US.

    Reality tells us the Abrams is not radar invisible and its gas turbine engine gives it an enormous IR signature that would probably allow it to be engaged by short range IR guided AAMs.

    Especially their highly networked force structure is impressive. A modern US heavy division tied into their force structure is really impressive when it comes to punch, agility, reconaissance and responsiveness.

    Doesn't seem to help those they fight along side, or people at weddings.

    So the individual system has less impact on the capability of such a heavy division than with a force which can hardly employ combined arms tactics let alone the sort of networked sea/air/land-battle the US can (I am not referring to Russia here!).

    It (their lack of IR and radar camouflage for individual vehicles) doesn't effect their performance because they have not gone up against an enemy that has the IR and radar capability to exploit that fact.

    The introduction and production of advanced thermal sights and radar equipment however will eventually see the US facing enemies equipped with technology similar to their own.

    For instance the thermal sight on the Javelin is cheap and simple (compared to the thermal sight used in vehicles or aircraft) because it is disposable. US vehicles are just as vulnerable to such weapons as older model Soviet and Russian vehicles because they have IR and radar signatures that don't hide them even with a bunch of branches and leaves piled on top of them. The M1 Abrams has a particularly bad IR signature and the T-80 is in the same boat and for the same basic reason... gas turbines put out a lot of hot exhaust gas.

    That Russia is trying to achieve this too with the introduction of new systems and force structures should show you alot.

    I think the subject of the vulnerability of net centric warfare was likely brought up at your suggestion that the US armed forces don't need to hide because they are so efficient.

    The reality is that everyone needs to hide what they are doing, and the examples given were cases of Nakidka and other methods of fooling the US net centric system, and doesn't even take into account other actions like jamming, intercepting and altering, or simply destroying info gathering assets and communications means.

    Just because not everything may work as planned doesn't mean new technologies, tactics and force structures are not worth using them. And it's not as if well planned maskirovkas or tricky tactics didn't lure enemies into killzones before. This is not new.

    The best deception leads your biggest enemy to fight another smaller enemy of yours...

    A 1st generation TI in a steaming jungle will be much more affected by it than a modern TI somewhere in Norway. Because of this i would be carefull about statements like reducing the radar signature by six times.

    It actually has little to do with thermal imager performance... a targets signature reduced to background levels is to all intents and purposes impossible to track or lock with a thermal sight. Thermal sights already have problems in tropical regions because the ground temperature is often similar to body temperature so humans are hard to separate from the background.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3130
    Points : 3222
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  medo on Sun Aug 21, 2011 11:52 am

    Like Sun Tzu said, war is art and it consist from both, people and equipment. It's nor everything in equipment. More is in people, their skills, trainings, discipline, strategy, tactics, inteligence, etc.

    Network C4ISR is excellent think, but it is not wise to became dependent on it. Old way with radio, map and compass and clear mind is still good back up in case if network collapse, is jammed or taken by enemy and show you picture, which enemy want you to see.

    Covers as Nakidka and inflatable tanks and other equipment is very useful in war, but units and soldiers still need to camouflage themself and have high camouflage discipline.

    High technology is still not almighty and the best way to gather info about enemy is to have human spy in enemy positions. High technology could be easily fooled with game of mirrors and smoke screen, which is very decisive before real battle start.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:21 pm

    Now back to Nakidka. I wouldn't believe too much in sales brochures from any company and country. Barracuda is reducing the signature of an AFV. How effective it really is is difficult to say as this is totally dependent on the environment and the stuff used to locate it. A 1st generation TI in a steaming jungle will be much more affected by it than a modern TI somewhere in Norway. Because of this i would be carefull about statements like reducing the radar signature by six times.

    NII Stali in reality has declared even more than the reduction of RCS of six times Very Happy
    The Company has in fact declared a reduction of the detection range of unities protected by Nakidka to 1/6 of the normal in a no jammed environment !!!
    See at 5:40 of the video of NII Stali on Nakidka


    www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYpwPx--exs


    Naturally this ,like you well know,is not generated by the mere reduction of RCS or reradiating energy for a particular platform, but by the unique combination with the powerful synergetic effect generated by the ground clutter "inverted noise bell" effect ,which effectively ,for a slow moving ground vehicle multiply several times the effect achieved by any reduction or partial dispersion of radar energy in the radar reradiating cones (this component of ground clutter is also one of the factor leading to the detection of a tank target type by part of a particular radar at ranges being usually a fraction of that relative to an air target of similar overall RCS).

    Fact is that Barracuda is available and in use with several AFVs. Nakidka may very well work a bit better but it will not be a fundamental advantage as it's basic features are not unique. Making a warwinning capability out of it reminds me too much of the hype around tube launched ATGMs

    Remind to you the hype around tube alunched ATGM ? Very strange because to me the "hype" around tube launched ATGM, instead ,remind a whole western military scientifical community of the sector (naturally leaded,as always, by the Germans...) frantically attempting to produce theirs "by far most advanced MBT project" within 50 tons of weight ,with autoloader and ,above all,.....capable to gun fire long range ATGM (MBT-70) or the RAS -Risk Assessment Survey - of US DoD before Desert Storm which ,before decide if a ground operation was a suitable option, give as its first priority to assess if the.... 500 export "T-72-M".....had any operational TI sight and,above all, any capability to gun-fire ATGM , or the TERM project etc.... to me all that appear as the (failed) attempt to don't be forced ,in a very unlucky hypothesis, to fight in a battle as 73 Easting or ,even worse, a Soviet offensive in the Great European Plain, against enemy MBT engaging happily your Abrams MBT, Bradley AFV, M113 APC etc.. with salvo after salvo of AT-8/11 from 4-5 km of range without owning any weapon for respond .
    But naturally the best way to loosen those deep concerns of the western experts's community of the sector is ....to be absolutely sure that those type of weaponries ,even in theirs most downgraded export version ,was not present in the arsenals of the infinitely inferior opponents which you selectively engage in your "power projection" military policy and instead engage with your M1 Abrams and Bradley in the iraqi desert only enormously scaled down T-72-M with a thin full steel armor,vastly downgraded FCS and tracking systems, equiped only with the full steel 3BM17 APFSDS with half propellant and uncapoable to employ any type of standoff gun fired ATGM and ,after the war, praise the miraculous advantages provided by networked information, situational awareness superiority and data sharing capabilities .
    And that is a tactic which garantee a sure success Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Why?
    What's compelling the US-forces to do so?

    Because,at example,that is exactly what US-Forces did in virtually any pasted conflict in the last 20 years?
    I image that you have have read GWAPS and have realized as even only bring in a theatre (in this istance in the airfields offered to NATO forces by Saudi Arabia) the assets to even only prepare an air campaign against an enemy with a weak and largely outdated AD structure, is a critical process ,very very slow and during which your vulnerability to almost any type of enemy attack (except if you already own in the place and extensive,very strong IAD....pratically a non-existent istance for any Air Forces involved in any power projection mission around the world) is simply enormous ; so become a true strategic "dictat" attempt to complete those operations as quickly as possible capitalizing at maximum the flow of shared informations of the presence of enemy menaces coming from surveillance and tracking sensor network .


    avatar
    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 706
    Points : 880
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  ahmedfire on Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:21 pm


    Is NII providing exact comparisons of Nakidka vs different kinds of Radars and TIs? That's where the problem is. Just like with the zillions of Air Force threads here generalisation is not possible with such a complex topic as detection of an AFV by a multidude of different systems.

    As for network centric warfare. Do you think any other country could have pulled of the same like what the US did in the conventional phase of OIF? Their ability to effectively integrate their whole air, land and sea forces during this campaign shows how far away from the rest of the world they are.

    And all these theories about some specific hypotetical situations always seem to assume that some clever tactics and technologies give the US a headache. But this is war and I doubt that military planners think that every country will be a pushover like Iraq. Some losses to the US doesn't make the other side win the war.


    Not to talk of the fact that in all these scenarios the other side seems under no pressure by the US-NATO ability to disrupt and destroy their command, control and support infrastructure...

    The US as well as the Russians were lured into more local defeats by the germans than one can count during WWII. Did this made them loose the war?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:35 pm

    All I can say is that the measure/countermeasure war will continue forever, but at the moment my money is on the Russian nakidka kit to give them an edge against a capable enemy.

    Not US or NATO because tanks don't mean anything in such a conflict... that is when you count TOPOLs and Sinevas.

    For other forces fighting the US it is not about winning, it is about inflicting enough losses to make them leave... and in such a conflict ICBMs and F-22s means nothing.

    For the Russians it is pretty much the same deal, and things like Nakidka are useful because just as in the conflict with Georgia in 2008 the Georgians were tied into the NATO air defence net and probably got their targeting info from Turkey. They likely also had decent night vision equipment, but just having a thermal sight is not enough to fight at night.

    The potential for the US to hand Javelin ATGMs is enough to warrant the development and production of Nakidka kits and deploying them... and also to use Smerch whereever possible.. Smile

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:17 pm

    Is NII providing exact comparisons of Nakidka vs different kinds of Radars and TIs?

    Question Question Question I truly don't understand what do you mean with this statement.
    Kind of radar ? I hope that you mean ,with those words,different radar bands and IR frequency's layer.
    NII stali has claimed a reduction of detection range of the protected vehicle to about 1/5 or 1/6 of the normal range for radars operating between lower L band to X band (pratically almost all those employed today by GMTI or SAR capable long and short range air to ground radars).

    Now,is obvious, that a radar with major capabilities will be capable to track a protected target at greater range ,but that has nothing to do with physical characteristic of Nakidka.
    Let put,for example, that an Irbis-E has a tracking range 5 times greater than an N019, now ,if an old Mig-29 with its N019 radar track an F/A-18-E at a particular range, is obvious that an Irbis-E, , will track this Super Hornet at.... 5 times that specific range Wink Wink
    The RCS reduction features implemented in the Super Hornet are exactly the same and act in almost the same way on both radars (operating in the same radar band); simply IRBIS-E is capable to track any target at 5 times the range of an N019.
    Now if instead of the radar capable to detect a T-90 at 180 km of distance present in the NII Stali's video (already corresponding at the best long range surveillance air to ground radar now available worldwide for the task ,like AN-APY-7 ,and in ideal conditions) and reduced to 30 km , you substitute another,in the same radar band, capable to detect that T-90 at 270 km ,the final range of detection against a T-90 equiped with Nakidka will become 45 Km.
    The radars are different, the detection ranges are different but Nakidka,obviously is always the same ,or a costant in the radar detection's function.

    As for network centric warfare. Do you think any other country could have pulled of the same like what the US did in the conventional phase of OIF?

    If want mine opinion (from all the publiations i have read in all those years) i think that a war like Desert Storm or Kosovo War and all the whole doctrine ,force structure design and organization behind them , are entirely designed for a power projection structure just modulated and optimized for fight against that type and class of enemy (knowing that against very powerful enemies the MAD element would guarantee that convetional war's strcture would not have had any real weight ).
    An operation like Desert Storm ,for example, would have been totally impossible no simply to conduct but even only to prepare against not a world level military power but even only a truly strong regional power.
    If Iraq or also Serbia some years after (which naturally have already in the theatre of operation all theirs forces and all theirs integrated defence systems in place) in fact, would have been equiped with world level offensive and defensive equipment, even merely the slow logistical operations (which required more than six months !!) necessary at merely prepare the minimum infrastructures and at bring in the theatre part of the military equipment and vehicles necessary at the first planned operative strcuture capable to conduct the first misilons ,would have been absolutely impossible .
    Image if Iraq ,in 1991, instead of....10 operative long range bombers (8 export versions of Tu-16 and 3 export versions of TU-22 Blinder )devoid of any type of long range,powerful weaponry, would have owned 70-80 original TU-22M equiped with KH-22M and Kh-15 ....for not say conventional armed theatre and intermediate range ballistic missile and long range cruise missile, or modern submarine-launched cruise/ballistic missile ....; the six airfields "offered" by Saudi Arabia to NATO coalition with all the equipment and aircraft,up to this time, transferred and the port of Dhahran ,would have been reduced to a sprawl of smoking craters by a rain of 6 ton mosnsters with a one ton warhead, each with destructive radius equal to 5 BGM-109 shooted by high supersonic bomber from.... 450-500 km of distance diving at Mach 4 from 27 km of altitude (even only the kinetic energy delivered would be equal to the explosion of a pair of JDAM !!) or by much numerous 1,2 ton missiles shooted from 300-350 km of distance dving at Mach-5 from 40 km of altitude ! !
    Some military capabilities ,linked to the owning of particular type of offemnsive and defensive weaponry (the trade of which is normally regulated by international rules or diplomacy just because capable to drammatically change or subvert equilibrium in a region) render entire concept of operation totally obsolete and unappliable ; naturally almost always those hindering conventional capabilities are owned and mantained by the same powers ,which own nuclear weapons and which are frozen in the MAD's dynamics.



    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Austin on Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:36 am

    What do guys think about the new T-90AM from Gur Khan blog

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/08/blog-post_3131.html
    avatar
    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1934
    Points : 2101
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:40 pm

    Austin wrote:What do guys think about the new T-90AM from Gur Khan blog

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/08/blog-post_3131.html

    It's definitely an improvement of the T-90A.


    And now a little treat...Cool

    T-95 art from 'Popular Mechanics' (posted by 'cromeshnic' at the Otvaga site)...what a MONSTER Twisted Evil






    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Austin on Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:48 pm

    The firepower and protection level seams deadly , although it has a higher turret but its also well protected , This was a single shot kill weapon for any NATO tank from any angle.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Austin on Mon Aug 29, 2011 5:05 am

    Thanks Garry

    T-90M http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/1255/nizhnijtagil1.jpg

    Interestingly they are not showing the rear of the turret which can prove it got a rear turret bustle loader

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Austin on Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:08 am

    http://savepic.org/2180294.jpg ( via void )

    1. system for internal and external comms
    2. machine gun installation
    3. panoramic commanders sights
    4. combined gunners sight sosna-u
    5. smoke grenade system
    6. gun droop compensator
    7. smoothbore 2A46M-5
    8. Relikt
    9. Information-controlled suspension (whatever that means)
    10. automatic transmission
    11. anti-rpg grills
    12. 1130hp multi-fuel diesel
    13. FCS Kalina
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15997
    Points : 16652
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:16 pm

    9. Information-controlled suspension (whatever that means)

    Would be active suspension... would automatically increase the range of wheel movement in shock absorbing on rough country, while on flat hard surfaces it would be hard to provide an optimum ride over different surfaces.

    6 would be better called barrel reference system. It detects barrel droop and allows for it in the ballistic calculations to make sure barrel droop doesn't result in a miss.

    Interestingly they are not showing the rear of the turret which can prove it got a rear turret bustle loader

    The Side view above clearly shows there is a turret bustle, though what it contains is not totally clear.

    The team that developed the black eagle joined UVZ when their company folded so if the requirements were for a smaller turret bustle that was more difficult to see and hit from the front then it is perfectly possible they might have simply implimented a much smaller autoloader that holds perhaps 5 rounds in two rows with perhaps an extra row top centre with 10 propellent stubs stacked end to end. 10 rounds of APFSDS rounds in the turret bustle plus 22 rounds in the under floor autoloader magazine with HE and HEAT shells would not be too much of a compromise in performance.
    The original system was the full width of the turret and held 31 rounds which suggests two layers of 15 rounds, so 5 rounds shouldn't be a stretch.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Austin on Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:41 pm

    The general conclusion when speaking at mp.net and from Gur Khan blog is that the rear turret bustle is just a place to keep ammo in a safe manner away from the crew , which is to say no loose ammo inside the turret , though it does not contain a new autoloader out there.

    The T-90M already has a new autoloader that can fire newer longer APFSDS rounds , so you can expect that once the new autoloader round is over which is 22 round , the ammo in rear bustle need to be manually fed to the loader or just reload it for autoloader to take over.

    I think this is the best part of T-90M deal it makes the tank so much safer , plus the other improvements like new gun , muzzle reference system , active suspension , K6 , TI sight for Gunner and Commander and other improvement is an icing on the cake.

    What is just needs is a good active protective system else its among the best tank out there , certainly the best that Russia has now till such time Armata comes in.

    I am very happy looking at how T-90 has come up from what we know now , I just need some more details on BMS and how the new commander/gunner work place looks.

    If this is any thing to go by , The Arjun Mk2 officially is said to cost $8.2 million dollar per tank.
    http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/08/antony-says-arjun-mk-ii-will-cost-rs-37.html

    Actually 37 crore in indian Rs is $ 8.2 million


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5997
    Points : 6399
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Austin on Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:56 pm

    Garry can you explain in simple English how Active Suspension and Automatic Transmission Works ?

    Sponsored content

    Re: T-90 MBT and Variants

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri May 26, 2017 7:33 am